Himachal Pradesh High Court
Aali vs Himachal Pradesh Housing Board And ... on 19 July, 2022
Author: Ajay Mohan Goel
Bench: Ajay Mohan Goel
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
ON THE 19th DAY OF JULY, 2022
.
BEFORE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY MOHAN GOEL
CIVIL WRIT PETITION (ORIGINAL APPLICATION)
No. 5902 of 2019
Between:-
SHRI SANJAY KUMAR, S/O SH.
BALAK RAM, R/O VILLAGE
AALI, P.O. BHRARIGHAT,
TEHSIL ARKI, DISTT. SOLAN,
H.P. r ...PETITIONER
(BY MS. SHIKHA CHAUHAN,
ADVOCATE)
AND
H. P. UNIVERSITY, SUMMER
HILL, SHIMLA-5, H.P. THROUGH
ITS REGISTRAR.
...RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI SURENDER VERMA,
ADVOCATE)
Whether approved for reporting? No.
__________________________________________________________
This petition coming on for hearing this day, the Court passed the
following:-
ORDER
When this case was taken up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that ends of justice will be met in case the respondent-University is directed to consider the case of the petitioner ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:03:35 :::CIS 2 for re-engagement without giving him any benefit of past service, in light of the fact that the contention of the respondent-University that the petitioner .
abandoned his work, is not sustainable in law, in the absence of respondent-University at least having communicated with the petitioner at the relevant time as to why he allegedly abandoned the work, whereas, the fact of the matter was that the services of the petitioner were actually verbally terminated, taking into consideration the judgment dated 27.07.2010, passed by this Court in CWP(T) No. 4959 of 2008, titled as Mangat Ram Vs. Himachal Pradesh Housing Board and others.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent-University, however, has submitted that taking into consideration the fact that the petitioner voluntarily abandoned the work as far back as in the year 2010 and thereafter approached the Court by way of a writ petition only in the year 2015, there being no merit in the present petition, the prayer being made by learned counsel for the petitioner be rejected.
3. Having heard the contentions of learned counsel for the respective parties, this Court is of the considered view that as the request which has been made by learned counsel for the petitioner is innocuous, accordingly, this writ petition is disposed of with the direction that in case the petitioner approaches the respondent-University by way of a representation within a period of two weeks from today, mentioning therein the issues which have been raised by way of present writ petition, then the ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:03:35 :::CIS 3 said representation be decided by the authority concerned within six weeks as from the date of receipt of the representation. While doing so, .
the authority may keep into consideration the mandate, as has been pronounced by this Court in Mangat Ram's case (supra). It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and the representation of the petitioner be decided by the authority concerned on the actual matrix in the case at hand. Miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge July 19, 2022 (bhupender) ::: Downloaded on - 21/07/2022 20:03:35 :::CIS